alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, C. Troy Woodbury, Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of Wegener Corporation
(the "Company"), in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, to the
best of my knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended February 27, 2004 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:

     o    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     o    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                      /s/ C. Troy Woodbury, Jr.
                                      --------------------------------
                              NAME:   C. TROY WOODBURY, JR.
                              TITLE:  TREASURER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                      (PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER)
                              DATE:   APRIL 12, 2004
# C_2019423EN.01005701.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/57

---

Order of the General Court of 25 September 2019 — Magnan v Commission

(Case T-99/19) (1)

(Action for failure to act, for damages and for annulment - Free movement of workers - Freedom to choose an occupation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Alleged infringement of that agreement by Swiss laws and regulations governing the exercise of the profession of medical practitioner - Application for the adoption of measures against Switzerland and application for compensation for harm suffered - Reply of EEAS - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2019/C 423/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nathaniel Magnan (Aix-en-Provence, France) (represented by: J. Fayolle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, J. Hottiaux and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application (i) under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take measures against the Swiss Confederation following an alleged infringement of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons (OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6), signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, (ii) under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to adopt measures against the Swiss Confederation, contained in the letter of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 20 December 2018 and (iii) under Articles 268 and 340 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm that the applicant has allegedly suffered since 2013 due to an infringement of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, as well as a penalty payment.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Nathaniel Magnan shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Nathaniel Magnan shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
Exhibit 32.2
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Annual Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gregory J. Dawson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.



                              ___/s/ Gregory J. Dawson____
                              Chief Financial Officer

                              August 27, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Kentucky
Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.



10
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Karen Cook, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant challenged the constitutionality of her prior felony conviction at her sentencing as a second felony offender on the ground that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. The People proved the existence of the prior felony conviction (CPL 400.21 [7] [a]), thereby shifting the burden of proof to defendant to show that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained (CPL 400.21 [7] [b]; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Defendant did not request an adjournment for purposes of preparation for a hearing (CPL 400.21 [5], [6]), but merely requested that the court review the transcripts of her prior plea and sentencing hearings. On the record before the sentencing court, we hold that defendant failed to prove that she was deprived of effective assistance of counsel on the prior conviction based upon her attorney’s *994failure to request that she be adjudicated a youthful offender *(see, People v James,*109 AD2d 1095). Consequently, defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.—grand larceny, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DAVID PAUL NAVARRO,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00207

- CR

Appeal from the

409th District Court of

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20140D03126 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We

further order this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of Minera Andes Inc. for the
three-month period ended June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,483,374
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      138,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,621,985
<PP&E>                                           4,040,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                     101,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,560,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              208,848
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        16,414,666
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,063,181)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,560,333
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,391,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,391,203)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,391,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,391,203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60919 Summary Calendar

JUAN ENRIQUEZ-RAMOS Petitioner

v. MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A99 095 683
Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Enriquez-Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board o f Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Because cancellation of removal is governed by § 1229b, the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies in the instant case. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 15, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-60919

2 This court lacksjurisdiction to reviewtheAttorney General’s discretionary decision regarding cancellation of removal, see Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004), unless the appeal involves constitutional claims or questions of law. See § 1229b(b); § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Despite his contentions to the contrary, Enriquez-Ramos’s appeal does not involve a constitutional claim or a question of law. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction to review this claim. See Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the petition for reviewis DISMISSED for lack ofjurisdiction.
# C_2020095EN.01001501.xml

| 23.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 13 December 2019 — Agrimotion S.A. v ADAMA Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-912/19)

(2020/C 95/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: Agrimotion S.A.

Applicant and respondent: ADAMA Deutschland GmbH

Question referred

Can an undertaking which places a plant protection product authorised in the Member State of origin on the market of the Member State of introduction rely on the parallel trade permit granted by the competent authority of the Member State of introduction to a third undertaking, if the canisters containing the plant protection product and in which that product is placed on the market of the Member State of introduction indicate both the holder of the permit and the importing undertaking? If there are any additional requirements, what are they? (1)

---

(1)  Pursuant to Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).

---
# C_2019295EN.01004602.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/46

---

Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Segre v Parliament

(Case T-421/19)

(2019/C 295/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sergio Camillo Segre (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# C_2020262EN.01003802.xml

| 10.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/38

---

Order of the General Court of 8 June 2020 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-534/19) (1)

(2020/C 262/52)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
Order entered June 30, 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00160

- CV

FRANCISCO RENTERIA, Appellant

V.

JUANA GUAJARDO, Appellee

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Ca use No. DF13

- 17723



### O RDER

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated March 14, 2014, we

notified the Court Reporter that the reporter’s record was overdue. We directed the Court

Reporter to file the record within thirty days. To da te, the reporter’s record has not been filed.

We ORDER Donna Kindle, Official Court Reporter for the 303rd Judicial District Court,

to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, either: (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written

verification that no hea rings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not

requested or paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We notify appellant that if we

receive verification the record has not been requested, or paid for, or no arrangeme nts have

been made to pay for the record, we may order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s

record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c).We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to:

Honorable Denise Garcia

Presiding Judge, 303rd Judicial District Court

Donna Kindle

Official Court Reporter, 303rd Judicial District Court

Counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
#### In re BLOOMFIELD ST.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

In the matter of Bloomfield street, etc.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
# C_2019213EN.01008201.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/82

---

Action brought on 6 May 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)

(Case T-296/19)

(2019/C 213/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and A. Sebastião, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heretat Mont-Rubi, SA (Font-Rubi, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SUM011 — Application for registration No 13 761 168

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 in Case R 1662/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | alter the contested decision and order the refusal of EUTM Application No. 13 761 168 SUM011 for the remaining services in classes 35 and 39; |
| --- | --- |

—

alter the contested decision and order the refusal of EUTM Application No. 13 761 168 SUM011 for the remaining services in classes 35 and 39;

| — | order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004, (the Report) of The Hillman Companies, Inc. (the
Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof; I, James P. Waters, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ James P. WatersName: James P. WatersDate: May 17, 2004
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 945 

To save at least $5,000,000,000 by consolidating some duplicative and 

overlapping Government programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2011 

Mr. COBURN (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To save at least $5,000,000,000 by consolidating some 

duplicative and overlapping Government programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONSOLIDATING UNNECESSARY DUPLICATIVE 

4 AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENT PRO5 GRAMS. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later 

7 than 150 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 

8 the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

9 shall coordinate with the heads of the relevant department 

10 and agencies to— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 945 IS

1 (1) use available administrative authority to 

2 eliminate, consolidate, or streamline Government 

3 programs and agencies with duplicative and overlap4 ping missions identified in the March 2011 Govern5 ment Accountability Office report to Congress, enti6 tled ‘‘Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication 

7 in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and 

8 Enhance Revenue’’ (GAO–11–318SP) and apply the 

9 savings towards deficit reduction; 

10 (2) identify and report to Congress any legisla11 tive changes required to further eliminate, consoli12 date, or streamline Government programs and agen13 cies with duplicative and overlapping missions identi14 fied in the March 2011 Government Accountability 

15 Office report to Congress, entitled ‘‘Opportunities to 

16 Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Pro17 grams, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue’’ 

18 (GAO–11–318SP); 

19 (3) determine the total cost savings that shall 

20 result to each agency, office, and department from 

21 the actions described in paragraph (1); and 

22 (4) rescind from the appropriate accounts the 

23 amount greater of— 

24 (A) $5,000,000,000; or 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 945 IS

1 (B) the total amount of cost savings esti2 mated by paragraph (3). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS